Method and apparatus for identifying the coverage of a test sequence in a rules-based expert system

ABSTRACT

A method and apparatus for efficiently debugging and/or testing a rules based expert system. To provide guidance when updating a test sequence, the present invention contemplates identifying which rule sets and/or rules were exercised by the test sequence, and which were not exercised. The present invention also contemplates identifying the rule sets and/or rules that were exercised, and the percent of the rule sets/rules that were exercised. This and other information may be useful in identifying appropriate changes for the test sequence so that those rule sets and/or rules that were not exercised during the previous iteration are exercised in a subsequent iteration.

CROSS REFERENCE TO CO-PENDING APPLICATIONS

The present application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/937,024, filed Sep. 23, 1997, entitled "Survey Analysis System and Method"; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/937,025, filed Sep. 23, 1997, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Warning a User of Potential Limitations of a Database Request and/or the Results Provided Thereby"; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/937,354, filed Sep. 23, 1997, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Using Prior Results When Processing Successive Database Requests"; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/937,351, filed Sep. 23, 1997, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Validating a Survey Database"; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/937,353, filed Sep. 23, 1997, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Detecting an Endless Loop in a Rules-Based Expert System", all of which are assigned to the assignee of the present invention and incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention generally relates data processing systems, and more particularly relates to rules-based expert systems.

2. Description of the Prior Art

With the rapid advancement of modern electronics, data processing systems have found many new and useful applications. Today, almost every industry sector uses some form of data processing systems in it's daily activities. The banking industry, for example, uses mainframe type data processing systems to maintain large accounting databases, and to manage the large number of banking transactions that occur every day. The manufacturing industry uses data processing systems to maintain process flows, and manage inventory. Engineering and scientific applications are self evident. Even in the home, personal computers have become widely used.

Numerous software programs exist to support each of these varying applications. Traditionally, most software is written using a conventional high level computer programming language such as FORTRAN, PASCAL, COBOL, C++, Visual Basic, etc. A common statement in all of these programming languages is some form of a conditional statement. One example of a conditional statement is an if-then type statement, and typically includes an if type clause and a corresponding then type clause. The if type clause usually has a corresponding expression, which if true, allows the execution of the then type clause. When using conventional programming languages, all statements including the conditional statements must be explicitly specified in the context of the overall program flow.

Recently, rules-based expert systems have gained popularity, and are particularly suited for certain applications. In a rules-based expert system, a number of rules are provided. The rules may be grouped into a number of rule sets, wherein each of the rule sets can be individually submitted for processing. Each rule set may having a listing of rules that identifies the rules that are associated with the rule set.

Each rule is similar to a conditional statement in a conventional programming language. Unlike conventional programming languages, however, a rules-based expert system typically has a special program called an inference engine. The inference engine manages the rules and applies them as appropriate, rather than simply executing the rules in a strictly sequential manner as in the conventional computer programming languages.

Typically, the inference engine applies the rules in an iterative manner. During a first pass, the inference engine typically sequentially processes a number of selected rules. For each rule, the inference engine determines if the expression of the if type clause is true. This is known as applying the rules. If the expression is found to be true, the corresponding then type clause is executed. This is known as executing the rule. Often, the "then" type clause executes statements that change a variable or parameter within the system. The inference engine maintains a listing of the updated parameters.

During a second pass, the inference engine determines which of the rules have an expression in the if type clause that is dependent on one or more of the parameters in the listing of updated parameters. The inference engine reapplies only those rules, and again updates the listing of updated parameters. This is repeated until no parameters exist in the listing of updated parameters.

As can readily be seen, the precise flow of rule processing in a rules-based expert system can vary dramatically, depending on the particular interactions between the rules that are processed. The interactions between rules can be very difficult to predict, particularly since hundreds of rules may exist within the system. This often makes robust debug and product testing of rules-based expert system difficult, time consuming, and tedious. It would be advantageous, therefore, to provide a system and method for efficiently debugging and/or testing a rules based expert system.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention overcomes many of the disadvantages of the prior art by providing a method and apparatus for efficiently debugging and/or testing a rules based expert system. One approach for testing rules based expert systems is to execute a test sequence, and evaluate the test coverage and results provided thereby. The term "test coverage" is often used to describe the degree that the test sequence exercises the desired portions of the system. For example, in a rules based expert system, it may be desirable to exercise each of the rules and rule sets. A test sequence that achieves this may be said to have a 100 percent test coverage. A test sequence typically includes one or more commands or requests that are submitted to the rules based expert system.

Once the test coverage for a particular test sequence is known, the test sequence can be changed to improve the test coverage provided thereby. This can be repeated until an adequate test coverage is achieved. To provide guidance on how to update a test sequence to achieve optimum test coverage, the present invention contemplates identifying which rules and rule sets were and were not exercised by the previous test sequence. The present invention also contemplates calculating a percent of the available rules and rule sets that exercised. This and other information may be helpful in identifying appropriate changes to make in the test sequence so that those rule sets and rules that were not exercised during the previous iteration are exercised in a subsequent iteration.

Specifically with respect to the rules, the present invention contemplates identifying which rules were applied and which rules were executed by the test sequence. This and other information may also be helpful in identifying appropriate changes for the test sequence so that those rules that were not applied and/or executed during the previous iteration are exercised in a subsequent iteration. Accordingly, the number of iterations that are required to arrive at a test sequence with an adequate test coverage may be reduced.

To identify the rules that are applied and/or executed during the execution of a test sequence, one embodiment of the present invention contemplates providing a first and second indicator for each of the number of available rules. The first indicator is set for a particular rule when that particular rule is applied, and the second indicator is set for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed. Thereafter, the rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence may be identified by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules. Likewise, the rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence may be identified by examining the second indicator for each of the available rules.

The first indicator may be a count value wherein the count value is incremented each time the corresponding rule is applied. The rules that were applied are then determined by simply comparing the count value of the first indicator of each rule with a predetermined value, such as zero. An alternative method for determining which rules were applied examines a listing of rules that are associated with each rule set, as further described below.

The second indicator may also be a count value, wherein the count value of the second indicator is incremented each time the corresponding rule is executed. The rules that were actually executed are then determined by simply comparing the count value of the second indicator of each rule with a predetermined value, such as zero.

To identify the rule sets that are executed during the execution of a test sequence, one embodiment of the present invention contemplates providing a rule set indicator for each of the number of available rule sets. The rule set indicator for a particular rule set is then set when that particular rule set is executed. The rules sets that are executed during the execution of the test sequence may then be determined by examining the rule set indicator for each of the available rule sets.

Preferably, the rule set indicator is a count value, wherein the count value is incremented each time the corresponding rule set is executed. The rule sets that are executed during the execution of the test sequence can then be determined by simply comparing the count value of the rule set indicator of each rule set with a predetermined value, such as zero.

In another embodiment, it is contemplated that the rule sets that are executed during the execution of a test sequence can be identified by appending the names of the corresponding rule sets to a listing of executed rule sets in an explanation object within the database. The rule sets that are executed can then be identified by examining the listing of executed rule sets. After each of the executed rule sets are identified, the rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence can be identified by simply examining the listing of rules that are associated with each of the executed rules sets.

It is contemplated that the present invention may be implemented either in hardware, software of a combination thereof. When implemented in hardware, it is contemplated that a storing means may be provided for storing a first indicator for each of the number of available rules. A setting means may also be provided for setting the first indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is applied. Finally, a determining means may be provided for determining the rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules. The storing means and setting means are preferably implemented as a counter.

Likewise, a storing means may be provided for storing a second indicator for each of the number of available rules may be provided. A setting means may also be provided for setting the second indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed. A determining means may then be provided for determining the rules that were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the second indicator for each of the available rules.

It is also contemplated that a storing means may be provided for storing a rule set indicator for each of the number of available rule sets. A setting means may then set the rule set indicator for a particular rule set when that particular rule set is executed. A determining means may then determine the rules sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the rule set indicator for each of the available rule sets. The determining means may also determine which of the available rules were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the listing of rules that are associated with each of the rules sets that are identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Other objects of the present invention and many of the attendant advantages of the present invention will be readily appreciated as the same becomes better understood by reference to the following detailed description when considered in connection with the accompanying drawings, in which like reference numerals designate like parts throughout the figures thereof and wherein:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the computer-based environment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a first illustrative embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing an illustrative data processing system in accordance the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing in more detail the execution and control module 58 of FIG. 3;

FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing in more detail the interface module 52 of FIG. 3;

FIG. 6 is a block diagram showing a second illustrative embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 7 is a block diagram showing an illustrative data processing system in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing a preferred analysis control window in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing the preferred analysis control window of FIG. 8, with the type of analysis window expanded;

FIG. 10 is a diagram showing a preferred transaction viewer window, which is displaying the results of a strength type analysis;

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the transaction viewer window of FIG. 10, with the Result Caveats button selected;

FIG. 12 is a diagram showing a preferred explanation viewer window;

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing the preferred transaction viewer window of FIG. 10, after a subsequent weakness request has been executed;

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing the preferred analysis control window of FIG. 8, with the survey question selected to be Product Vender, and a response of Unisys;

FIG. 15 is a diagram showing the resulting transaction viewer window after the execute request button of FIG. 14 is depressed;

FIG. 16 is a diagram showing the preferred analysis control window with an opportunity analysis type selected;

FIG. 17 is a diagram showing a preferred SWOT editor window for editing SWOT parameters;

FIG. 18 is a diagram showing a preferred script editor window in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 19 is a table showing an illustrative correlation table;

FIG. 20 is a functional diagram showing the interaction of the interface module, knowledge module and data module of the preferred embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 21 is a flow diagram showing the general execution of a request in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 22 is a low level object model of the preferred interface module;

FIG. 23 is a composite object model for the preferred knowledge module;

FIG. 24 is a diagram showing a functional model for a SWOT analysis;

FIG. 25 is a diagram showing a functional model of a strength analysis;

FIG. 26 is a diagram showing a functional model of a weakness analysis;

FIG. 27 is a diagram showing a functional model of an opportunity analysis;

FIG. 28 is a diagram showing a functional model of a threat analysis;

FIG. 29 is a diagram showing a functional model of a survey validation analysis;

FIG. 30 is a diagram showing a functional model of the preferred data module;

FIG. 31 is a diagram showing a consolidated low level object model of the preferred data module;

FIG. 32 is a diagram showing a functional model of a preferred correlation table manager;

FIG. 33 is a table showing the execution of an illustrative direct RAP request, with a problem detected in the request;

FIGS. 34A-34B show the execution of an illustrative direct RAP request, when no problems are detected in the request or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problem;

FIGS. 35A-35B show the execution of an illustrative strength or weakness analysis, when problems are detected in the request;

FIGS. 36A-36C show the execution of an illustrative strength or weakness analysis, when no problems are detected in the request or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problem;

FIGS. 37A-37C show the execution of an illustrative threat or opportunity analysis, when no problems are detected in the request or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problem;

FIG. 38 is a table showing the execution of an illustrative survey validation request, with request problems detected;

FIGS. 39A-39B show the execution of an illustrative survey validation request, when no request problems are detected or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problems;

FIG. 40 is a table showing the execution of an illustrative SWOT parameter update using the SWOT editor of FIG. 17;

FIG. 41 is a flow diagram showing an illustrative method of the present invention;

FIG. 42 is a flow diagram showing another illustrative method of the present invention;

FIG. 43 is a flow diagram showing the method of FIG. 42, with elements 1206, 1208 and 1210 of FIG. 42 replaced with elements 1220 and 1222 of FIG. 43;

FIG. 44 is a flow diagram showing another variation of the method shown in FIG. 42, with element 1206 of FIG. 42 replaced with element 1228 of FIG. 44;

FIG. 45A and FIG. 45B show an illustrative method for processing a number of rules using an inference engine in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 46 is a conceptual diagram showing the processing of an illustrative analysis request in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 47A shows a number of illustrative rule and rule set parameters that can be provided from the analysis request of FIG. 46;

FIG. 47B shows a number of test coverage indicators that can be calculated from the rule and rule set parameters of FIG. 47A;

FIG. 48 is a flow diagram showing a first illustrative method in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 49 is a flow diagram showing a second illustrative method in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 50 is a flow diagram showing a third illustrative method in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 51 is a flow diagram showing an illustrative variation of the method of FIG. 50;

FIG. 52 is a flow diagram showing yet another illustrative variation of the method of FIG. 50;

FIG. 53 is a table showing illustrative analysis types, and the corresponding rule sets that are associated therewith;

FIGS. 54A-54C show a table of preferred rule sets, and the corresponding rules that are associated therewith;

FIGS. 55A-55O show a table of preferred rule names along with corresponding rule comments;

FIGS. 56A-56F shows an illustrative listing of the object oriented database before any analysis runs are executed; and

FIGS. 57A-57G shows an illustrative listing of the object oriented database before after a strength analysis type is executed.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The detailed descriptions which follow are presented largely in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art.

An algorithm is here, generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps leading to a desired result. These steps are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated. It proves convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers or the like. It should be kept in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities.

Furthermore, the manipulations performed are often referred to in terms, such as adding or comparing, which are commonly associated with mental operations performed by a human operator. No such capability of a human operator is necessary, or desirable in most cases, in any of the operations described herein which form part of the present invention; the operations are machine operations. Useful machines for performing the operations of the present invention include general purpose digital computers or other similar devices. In all cases, it should be kept in mind the distinction between the method of operations in operating a computer and the method of computation itself. The present invention relates to method steps for operating a computer in processing electrical or other (e.g., mechanical, chemical) physical signals to generate other desired physical signals.

The present invention also relates to apparatus for performing these operations. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes or it may comprise a general purpose computer as selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. The algorithms presented herein are not inherently related to a particular computer system or other apparatus. In particular, various general purpose computer systems may be used with computer programs written in accordance with the teachings of the present invention, or it may prove more convenient to construct more specialized apparatus, to perform the required method steps. The required structure for such machines will be apparent from the description given below.

In sum, the present invention preferably is implemented for practice by a computer, e.g., a source code expression of the present invention is input to the computer to control operations therein. It is contemplated that a number of source code expressions, in one of many computer languages, could be utilized to implement the present invention. A variety of computer systems can be used to practice the present invention, including, for example, a personal computer, an engineering work station, an enterprise server, etc. The present invention, however, is not limited to practice on any one particular computer system, and the selection of a particular computer system (including a computer network) can be made for many reasons.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the computer-based environment of the present invention. A user 10 interacts with the data processing system 12, which includes a processor 14, which executes operating system software, as well as application programs including the present invention. The processor is found in all general purpose computers and almost all special purpose computers. The data processing system 12 is intended to be representative of a category of data processors suitable for supporting survey analysis operations. In the preferred embodiment, the data processing system 12 is an IBM compatible personal computer (PC) running Windows 3.1, 95 or NT.

The user 10 enters information into the data processing system by using a well-known input device 16, such as a mouse, keyboard, or a combination of the two devices. It should be understood, however, that the input device may actually consist of a card reader, magnetic or paper tape reader, or other well-known input devices (including another computer system). A mouse or other cursor control device is typically used as an input device as a convenient means to input information to the data processing system to select command modes, edit input data, and the like. Visual feedback is given to the user by showing characters, graphical symbols, windows, buttons or the like on display 18. The display is used to display messages and symbols to the user. Such a display 18 may take the form of any of several well-known varieties of CRT displays. Display 18 may also be in the form of a printer, file storage system, magnetic tape, etc. The software executed by the processor 14 stores information relating to the operation thereof in memory 20. The memory may take the form of a semiconductor memory, magnetic disks, optical disks, magnetic tape or other storage device.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a first illustrative embodiment of the present invention. The block diagram is generally shown at 30, and includes an expert system 32, which communicates with a survey database 42. The expert system 32 includes an interface module 34, a knowledge module 36, and a data module 38. A user 40 communicates with the system via interface module 34, as shown. The interface module 34 helps the user 40 assemble a user request, which is provided to knowledge module 36.

Knowledge module 36 checks the user request both for syntax and content. This is preferably done using an inference engine (not shown), which executes a number of rules. The rules contain "knowledge" provided by a number of survey database analysis experts. Knowledge module 36 then stores a number of request caveats for later reference. The request caveats indicate if the user request provided by the interface module is a proper request based on the knowledge within the rules. Knowledge module 36 then assembles an appropriate survey request, and provides the request to data module 38.

Data module 38 accesses the survey database 42 and provides the requested data objects back to knowledge module 36. Knowledge module 36 processes the requested data objects and provides a number of reports back to interface module 34. Knowledge module 36 may also assemble a number of result caveats, and provide the result caveats to interface module 34. Knowledge module 36 preferably processes the requested data objects using an inference engine within a rules-based expert system. The user 40 can view the request caveats, reports and result caveats via interface module 34.

When a number of survey results are included in survey database 42, it may be necessary to provide a correlation table 44 which correlates the various questions of each of the surveys. Data module 38 may read the correlation table 44, and determine the appropriate requested data objects therefrom. This may occur, for instance, when the request provided by knowledge module 36 requires access to survey data from two separate years. The surveys used during these two separate years may have different questions or the questions may be in a different order relative to one another. In this instance, correlation table 44 may provide a correlation between the survey questions in the various surveys.

In addition, it is contemplated that the interface module 34 may display a listing of the generic questions, which may be selected by the user when forming the user request. To determine the appropriate generic questions for a selected survey, the interface module may access the correlation table 44 via the data module, and retrieve the generic questions that correspond to the actual questions in the selected survey.

Once a user request is formed, the knowledge module 36 may access the correlation table 44 to identify the actual question numbers and the appropriate surveys that correspond to the generic questions provided in the user request. The data requests provided by the knowledge module 36 to the data module 38 preferably specify the actual questions numbers, and the corresponding survey names in the survey database 42 to access. The data requests provided by the knowledge module 36 thus may identify selected data elements within the survey database 42 for analysis.

The data module 38 accesses the survey database 42 and provides the resulting data objects to knowledge module 36. Knowledge module 36 determines the requested response and provides the results to interface module 34.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing an illustrative data processing system in accordance with the present invention. The data processing system includes an interface module 52, a knowledge module 56, and a file storage area 83. The interface module 52 communicates with a user via interface 54. The interface module 52 may aid the user in assembling a survey database request.

Interface module 52 provides the resulting request to execution and control module 58 of knowledge module 56. The execution and control module 58 may check the requests received from interface module 52 by initiating execution of a number of rules 72 via inference engine 60. That is, execution and control module 58 may initiate inference engine 60 via interface 78, wherein inference engine 60 may execute a number of rules to check the request. Execution and control module 58 may then receive the results from inference engine 60 via interface 80, wherein execution and control module 58 may assemble a number of request caveats. Execution and control module 58 provides these request caveats to request caveat generator 64 via interface 82. Request caveat generator 64 stores the request caveats in the file storage area 83, as shown at 86.

Execution and control module 58 may also read survey database 68 via interface 70. After the appropriate data elements are read from the survey database 68, execution and control module 58 may again direct inference engine 60 to execute a number of rules 72. The rules may generate the desired results, and may further check the validity of the results. Execution and control module 58 may then provide the results to report generator 62 via interface 82, and any result caveats to result caveat generator 66. Report generator 62 and result caveat generator 66 may store the reports 84 and result caveats 88 in the file storage area 83, respectively.

As indicated above, when a request from interface module 52 requires data from more than one survey, it may be desirable to correlate various questions of the various surveys. To do so, execution and control module 58 may provide a request to correlation module 90 via interface 91. Correlation module 90 may read correlation tables 92 via interface 94, and provide the desired correlation data between the various survey questions.

In addition, the interface module 52 preferably displays a listing of the generic questions for selection by the user when forming the user request. To determine the appropriate generic questions for a selected survey, the interface module 52 may access the correlation module 90 via execution and control module 58, and retrieve the generic questions that correspond to the actual questions in the selected survey.

Once a user request is formed, the knowledge module may identify the actual question numbers and the appropriate surveys that correspond to the generic questions provided in the user request. The data requests provided by the knowledge module, either directly or indirectly to the survey database, preferably specify the actual questions numbers and the corresponding surveys to access. The data requests provided by the knowledge module may thus identify selected data elements within the survey database for analysis.

FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing in more detail the execution and control module 58 of FIG. 3. The execution and control module 58 may include an analysis type module 122, a data element determining module 124, and a response determining module 128. The analysis type module 122 determines the analysis type of the user request provided by the interface module. In a preferred embodiment, the analysis types include a strength analysis type, a weakness analysis type, an opportunity analysis type, a threat analysis type, etc.

Once the analysis type is determined, data element determining module 124 determines which of the data elements in the survey database are to be accessed. For some requests, the request itself may identify the data elements to be accessed. That is, the user request may indicate which questions from which surveys are to be processed. For other requests, however, the correlation table may be required to identify the appropriate questions within each of the surveys.

Data element determining module 124 provides a corresponding request to data module 126, as shown. Data module 126 accesses the survey database and provides the resulting data objects to response determining module 128. Response determining module 128 determines the requested response and provides the results to the report and caveat generators (see FIG. 3).

The desired response can be dependent upon a number of analysis parameters 130. In accordance with one feature of the present invention, the analysis parameters 130 are user programmable. It is contemplated that response determining module 128 may determine the appropriate response by executing a number of rules via inference engine 60. The analysis parameters 130 preferably are referenced by a number of these rules. Thus, the analysis parameters 130 may affect the results provided by the rules, and therefore, the response provided by response determining module 128.

For each request, data module 126 may store the results in prior results file 134. A search block 132 may be used to search the prior results file 134 before accessing the survey database. If a request from data element determining module 124 requires access to results that were already generated for a previous request, data module 126 may read the appropriate prior results file 134 and provide the appropriate results directly to response determining module 128. Because accessing the survey database may require more time than simply accessing the prior results file 134, this feature can save considerable time in processing a request. This is particularly true when data module 126 accesses the survey database via a survey analysis program, which must calculate and assemble a number of intermediate reports which are provided to response determining module 128.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram showing in more detail the interface module 52 of FIG. 3. Interface module 52 may include a request module 140, and a response module 142. The request module may aid the user in assembling the user requests which are provided to knowledge module 56 via interface 76. The response module 142 aids the user in reading and viewing the reports and various caveats received via interface 98.

It is contemplated that interface module 52 may include a script module 144. Script module 144 is preferably coupled to request module 140, as shown. In a scripting mode, request module 140 may provide the assembled user request to script module 144, rather than to knowledge module 56. Script module 144 may store a number of assembled user requests in a number of script files 146, as shown. Upon a user's command, the assembled requests within a script file 146 may then be provided to knowledge module 56 from request module 140 via interface 76.

Accordingly, this feature may allow a user to build a number of script files 146 without having to wait for the knowledge module to process the results. Thereafter, the user may execute all of the assembled requests within a script by simply executing one of the script files 146. The request module 140 may then sequentially provide the assembled user requests within a selected script file to the knowledge module 56 in a batch like mode.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram showing a second illustrative embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, a rules based expert system is utilized. Rules are similar to conditional statements in a conventional computer program. However, rules are typically executed using an inference engine, which manages the application of the rules. A conventional program, by contrast, has to indicate explicitly when given conditional statements should be applied. The rules are defined by the application developer and are incorporated into the rules-based expert system.

The preferred rules based expert system is the KAPPA-PC programming environment. KAPPA-PC is available from IntelliCorp, Inc., and provides an object-oriented programming environment with an inference engine for rule-based reasoning. A further discussion of the KAPPA-PC programming environment can be found in the KAPPA-PC on-line help files, which are incorporated herein by reference.

The interface module 168, knowledge module 170 and data module 196 are all preferably implemented using the KAPPA-PC programming language KAL. The interface module 168 helps a user 174 assemble a desired survey request, and preferably includes all necessary objects and methods to interact with the user including all input screens, RAP command prompts, analysis processing values (object attributes), response windows, etc.

To help the user focus the requests, the interface module 168 may allow the user to select one of a number of surveys, and any number of certain questions from the selected survey. Because corresponding questions in selected surveys may differ from one survey to another, the interface module 168 preferably displays a listing of generic questions for selection by the user when forming the user request. To determine the appropriate generic questions for a selected survey, the interface module 168 may access the correlation table 184 via data module 172, and retrieve the generic questions that correspond to the actual questions in the selected survey.

After a request is assembled, the interface module 168 provides the user requests to knowledge module 170. Knowledge module 170 determines which RAP reports will be required to derive the desired result. Knowledge module 170 may also determine a number of request caveats, as described above. After determining which RAP reports are required to derive the desired result, the knowledge module 170 provides appropriate data requests to data module 172 via interface 182. Data module 172 provides the data requests to survey analysis module 164 via interface 188. Survey analysis module 164 executes the data requests. This typically includes accessing the survey database 166 and providing the requested RAP reports back to data module 172 via interface 190.

Data module 172 may then parse the RAP reports received from the survey analysis module 164, and provide a number of data objects to knowledge module 170. Knowledge module 170, using a number of rules, may then determine the requested results, and provide the requested results to interface module 168. Knowledge module 170 may also provide a number of result caveats to interface module 168 via interface 194. The user 174 may then view the request caveats, the desired results, and the result caveats.

In a preferred embodiment, the survey analysis module is implemented using the Research Analysis Program (RAP) available from Prognostics, Inc., located in Menlo Park, Calif. RAP is a software program developed by Prognostics to access a survey database and provide a number of reports. These reports include a correlation report, a distribution report, a GAP report, a multi-GAP report, etc. The RAP manual, available from Prognostics, Inc., describes these various reports, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Generally, the correlation report determines the correlation between the importance and/or satisfaction in one segment of the survey database with the importance and/or satisfaction in another. The distribution report provides the number of responses in a segment of the survey database. The GAP report identifies the gaps between the importance and satisfaction responses for a particular segment of the survey database. The multi-GAP report identifies the gaps between the importance and satisfaction responses for a range of questions in the survey database.

While these RAP reports can be useful in analyzing survey data, it has been found that more complex reports are often desired. To produce these more complex reports, it has been necessary to generate selected reports offered by the RAP program, and then manually calculate the desired data elements therefrom. This is often tedious and error prone, particularly since the desired reports may have to be updated each time a new survey database is received.

For those situations where the reports provided by the RAP program are sufficient, the interface module 168 may allow a user 174 to provide direct RAP requests to knowledge module 170. Knowledge module 170 may pass the direct RAP requests to data module 172. Data module 172 may then pass the direct RAP requests to the RAP program 164. The RAP program may execute the direct RAP requests, and provide corresponding reports to data module 172. Data module 172 may then provide the reports to the interface module 168, via knowledge module 170. It is contemplated that the knowledge module 170 may generate request caveats and/or result caveats for the direct RAP requests.

For complex requests, interface module 168 may assemble a user request and provide the user request to knowledge module 170 via interface 180. Knowledge module 170 performs a check of the user request and provides a number of request caveats to interface module 168 via interface 194. Preferably, knowledge module 170 determines the request caveats by executing a number of rules using the inference engine within the KAPPA-PC environment.

Thereafter, the knowledge module 170 determines the appropriate data elements that are required to respond to the user request by executing a number of rules. The Knowledge Module may include references to a number of rules, some of which are generic (executed for each complex command), and others that are intended to be executed only for certain commands. For this reason, the knowledge module uses the KAPPA-PC notion of a rule-set for rule-based execution.

In addition, an object called "inference₋₋ network" may be provided in the object oriented database (see FIG. 57D and FIG. 57E). The inference₋₋ network objects may contain many multi-valued slots (lists), where each slot corresponds to a rule set. The list of rules to be executed in each instance may be stored in the slot name, and the knowledge module may determine which rule sets to invoke.

As indicated above, the user request provided by the interface module preferably includes the text of a generic question. To identify the actual question number within the selected survey, the knowledge module 170 may access the correlation table 184 via the data module 172. The correlation table may provide a cross-reference between the generic question text and the corresponding actual question numbers in each of the surveys. In this way, the knowledge module 170 may identify the data elements within the survey database that are required to respond to the user request. A further discussion of the correlation table 184 can be found with reference to FIG. 32.

The knowledge module 170 provides a number of data requests to data module 172, preferably identifying the appropriate data elements within the survey database. Data module 173 forwards the data requests to the survey analysis module 164, wherein the data requests are executed. The survey analysis module 164 provides a number of resulting reports to data module 172. In the preferred embodiment, the reports provided by the survey analysis module 164 are in an ASCII format. Data module 172 may parse the reports into a number of data objects, and provides the data objects to knowledge module 170.

Using the data objects, knowledge module 170 determines the requested results. Knowledge module 170 may also determine a number of result caveats. The results and result caveats may then be provided to interface module 168.

It is contemplated that data module 172 may store the data objects received from survey analysis module 164 in a prior results file 198. Once a request is received by data module 172 from knowledge module 170, data module 172 may search the prior results file 198 via search engine 196 to determine whether the requested data objects have already been generated and stored. If so, data module 172 may provide the requested data objects from prior results file 198 directly to knowledge module 170, rather than regenerating the data objects via survey analysis module 164. This may decrease the execution time for a corresponding request, particularly since the re-use of prior results objects can occur for different request types.

FIG. 7 is a block diagram showing an illustrative data processing system 210 in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention. The data processing system 210 includes an interface module 212, a knowledge module 216, and a file storage area 246. The interface module 212 communicates with a user via interface 214. The interface module 212 aids the user in assembling survey database requests, as described above. Interface module 212 provides the resulting request to execution and control module 218 of knowledge module 216.

Preferably, execution and control module 218 checks the requests received from interface module 212 by initiating execution of a number of rules 236 via inference engine 220. That is, execution and control module 218 may provide a request to inference engine 220 via interface 232, wherein inference engine 220 may execute a number of selected rules. Execution and control module 218 may then receive the results from inference engine 220 via interface 234, wherein execution and control module 218 may determine a number of request caveats. Execution and control module 218 provides these request caveats to request caveat generator 224 via interface 244. Request caveat generator 224 stores the request caveats in the file storage area 246, as shown at 250.

Execution and control module 218 may also provide a corresponding request to data module 228. Data module 228 determines the appropriate requests to submit to survey analysis module 240. Survey analysis module 240 receives the requests from data module 228, and performs the requests on the survey database 242. The survey analysis module receives the results and provides the results to data module 228. Data module 228 forwards the results to execution and control module 218. It is contemplated that data module 228 may process the results prior to forwarding the results to execution and control module 218.

Execution and control module 218 may initiate execution of the inference engine 220 to check the results. The inference engine 220, by executing a number of the rules 236, may provide a number of result caveats. Execution and control module 218 may then either provide the results directly to report generator 222 via interface 244, or perform further processing on the results and provide those results to report generator 222. Also, execution and control module 218 may provide the result to result caveat generator 226. Report generator 222 and result caveat generator 226 may store reports 248 and result caveats 252 in the file storage area 246.

As indicated above, when a request from interface module 212 requires data from more than one survey, it may be desirable to correlate various questions of the various surveys. To do so, execution and control module 218 may provide a request to data module 228, which may then access correlation module 254. Correlation module 254 may read correlation tables 256, and provide the desired correlation data between the various survey questions.

In addition, the interface module 212 preferably displays a listing of the generic questions for selection by the user when forming the user request. To determine the appropriate generic questions for a selected survey, the interface module 212 may access the correlation module 254 via data module 228, and retrieve the generic questions that correspond to the actual questions in the selected survey.

Finally, to help identify which rules and/or rule sets are executed during the execution of a test sequence, it is contemplated that a count block 258 may be provided. Count block 258 may include a number of count values, one for each of the rules in the system. The count block 258 may further include a number of count values, one for each of the rule sets in the system. Count block 258 counts the number of times each rule and/or rule set is executed by inference engine 220. Count block 258 may also include a number of second count values, one for each of the rules in the system. The second count value may count the number of times each rule is applied by the inference engine 220.

The knowledge module 216 may include a determining means to determine which rules sets and/or rules were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the rule set indicator and/or test indicators for each of the available rule sets and/or rules, respectively. The determining means may also determine which of the available rules were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the listing of rules that are associated with each of the rules sets that are identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence.

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing a preferred analysis control window in accordance with the present invention. The control window is generally shown at 300, and includes a number of regions. A first region is the command mode region 302. The command mode region 302 includes a direct RAP request selection and a complex request selection. The direct RAP request selection allows direct RAP requests to be provided to the research analysis program (RAP). When the direct RAP request is selected and the execute request button 310 is depressed, a direct RAP request is executed by RAP, and the corresponding RAP reports are generated.

In the illustrative diagram, the command mode region 302 shows the complex request mode selected. In this mode, analysis type region 306 provides a number of complex mode analysis types for selection (see, for example, FIG. 9). In the illustrative diagram, a strength type analysis is selected.

A survey name region 304 is also provided. The survey name region 304 allows a user to select one of a number of surveys from a survey database. In the illustrative diagram, a survey named CS96NA is selected. The survey question region 308 displays the survey questions that correspond to the selected survey. Preferably, the survey question region 308 displays a listing of generic questions that correspond to the actual question in the selected survey. This provides consistency to the questions listed in the survey question region 308, regardless of the selected survey. The user may identify one or more of the items in survey question region 308 to further focus the analysis. None are selected in the illustrative diagram of FIG. 8.

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing the analysis control window of FIG. 8, with the type of analysis region 306 expanded. As indicated above, a number of analysis types can be selected by the user. In the illustrative diagram, a strength analysis is selected, as shown at 306. The resulting request is shown in the request region 322. Other complex analysis types include weakness, opportunity, threat, behavior, GAP, importance, satisfaction, etc.

FIG. 10 is a diagram showing a preferred transaction viewer window, which is displaying the results of the strength analysis request of FIG. 9. The execution of each request produces a transaction. The transaction viewer window 330 displays the results of each transaction. In the illustrative diagram, a transaction which has been given the name TR₋₋ 0 is displayed, as shown at 332. The request information that was used to generate the transaction is shown in the request region 338. The request region 338 indicates that the results shown correspond to a strength type analysis, using a survey named CS96NA, and using the corporate baseline algorithm.

A view selection region is provided at 335. The results button 334 is shown highlighted, indicating that the results are shown in the response transcript region 336, rather than the request caveats or result caveats.

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the transaction viewer window of FIG. 10, with the Result Caveats button selected. When the result caveat button 340 is selected, the response transcript region 342 displays the result caveats for the selected transaction. The request caveat button 341, if selected, would display the request caveats for the selected transaction.

The transaction viewer window also may include an explain button 344, as shown. The explain button, when selected, displays the rule sets and rules that were activated by the inference engine during the execution of the selected transaction. The display provided by the explain button is further described with reference to FIG. 12.

FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an explanation viewer window. The explanation viewer window is activated by the explain button of the transaction viewer window (see, FIG. 11). The explanation viewer window has a rule set region 350 that shows the rule sets that were activated during a selected transaction. When a particular rule set is selected within the rule set region 350, such as RS₋₋ XQT₋₋ STRENGTH₋₋ 4 as shown at 352, the rules within that rule set are displayed in rules region 354. For example, the rules in rule set RS₋₋ XQT₋₋ STRENGTH₋₋ 4 are shown at 354.

By selecting a particular rule, for example, rule S₋₋ SET₋₋ REPORT as shown at 356, the corresponding comment for that rule is displayed in the rule comments region 358. Accordingly, the user can determine which rule sets and rules were activated for a selected transaction, and can further view the comments for each of the rules.

Each rule typically includes an IF clause, a THEN clause, and a COMMENT. As indicated above, the comment is accessed through the Explain button by selecting a rule within a rule set. An "Explain" object instance is created for every transaction, and includes the list of rule sets invoked during the transaction. A further discussion of the preferred method for obtaining the list of rule sets and rules that were activated for a particular transaction can be found herein, and more particularly with reference to FIG. 45A through FIG. 52 below.

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing the transaction viewer window of FIG. 10 after a subsequent weakness request is executed. The transaction region now shows two transactions including TR₋₋ 0 and TR₋₋ 1, with TR₋₋ 1 selected. The corresponding results are shown at 366 in the response transcript region 366. By selecting the appropriate transaction in the transaction region, the corresponding results are displayed in the response transcript region 366.

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing the analysis control window of FIG. 8, with the Product Vendor question selected. As can be seen, a complex request is selected at 372, and a strength analysis type is selected at 376. The survey name CS96NA is selected at 374, which provides a number of survey question selections in the survey question region. As indicated above, a number of generic questions are displayed in the survey question region.

In the illustrative diagram, the generic question "product vendor" is selected at 378. The available answers to the product vendor question for the survey CS96NA are displayed in the response region adjacent to the survey question region. The available answers are obtained by accessing a MQA routine. Preferably, the MQA routine accesses a MQA table that is provided by the survey database vendor. The MQA table stores the available answers to each question in a survey.

The user may select one or more of the product vendor responses. In the illustrative diagram, the UNISYS product vendor is selected at 380. The request region 382 displays the resulting request. The user may execute the request by depressing the Execute Request button 384.

FIG. 15 is a diagram showing the resulting transaction viewer window after the execute request button of FIG. 14 is depressed. A description of the request is shown at 394, indicating that a product vendor of Unisys is selected. The corresponding results are shown in the response transcript region 398.

FIG. 16 is a diagram showing an illustrative analysis control window with an opportunity analysis type selected. The complex request command mode is selected at 402, and an opportunity analysis type is selected as shown at 406. An opportunity analysis determines those areas that a particular vendor has an opportunity for gaining market share over other vendors. In the example shown, the primary request selects the survey name CS96NA at 404, and a Product Vendor of UNISYS at 408 and 410, respectively.

The secondary request selects survey CS96NA as shown at 412, and a Product Vendor of IBM at 414. The resulting opportunity request is shown in the request region 418.

If a product vendor is selected that is not in competition with, or is otherwise determined to be not compatible with UNISYS, for example, then the system may generate a request caveat indicating the incompatibility. In another example, if an opportunity request is assembled which compares two product types which are incompatible (like a main frame versus a PC), then the system may generate a request caveat indicating the incompatibility. It is contemplated that a user may select a different survey name, survey question and/or survey answer.

FIG. 17 is a diagram showing a SWOT editor window for editing SWOT parameters. Preferably, some of the rules within the expert system have parameters or variables that can be set or changed by the user. The SWOT editor window 440 provides an interface for changing these variables and/or parameters. The SWOT editor window first allows a user to select one of a number of SWOT algorithms. The acronym "SWOT" refers to one of the Strength, Weakness, Opportunity or Threat analysis types.

The first SWOT algorithm shown is entitled client significant. The client significant algorithm (importance x satisfaction) analyzes the client satisfaction data using the hypothesis that the relationship between importance and satisfaction reveals whether the vendor is meeting the client's expectations. On the opposite end of the continuum, a client that rates a vendor low on both importance and satisfaction, thus having a low satisfaction and importance product, is indicating to the vendor that the vendor is systematically out of sync with the client's expectations. The result of the client significant algorithm is a continuum of questions ordered on the cumulative effect of the importance/satisfaction product, and allows the user to evaluate the need for changes in business unit strategy.

The second SWOT algorithm is entitled repurchase contributors. The repurchase contributors algorithm (using MGAP times correlation to repurchase, filtered for high importance, low GAP, and high correlation to purchase intent) provides the vendor with an analysis of the client's importance/satisfaction GAP and the correlation with the client's intent to repurchase the vendor's products. This algorithm uses only paired responses (questions that have both importance and satisfaction responses) to perform the analysis. The hypothesis used by this analysis type is that the most important things to improve are those things that correlate with the client's intent to repurchase.

The next algorithm selection is entitled client satisfiers. The client satisfiers algorithm (using MGAP times correlation to repurchase filtered for high importance, low GAP and high correlation to satisfaction) provides the vendor with the client's importance/satisfaction GAP in a particular area, and the correlation thereof with the client's overall satisfaction with the vendor. This algorithm also only uses paired responses to perform the analysis. The hypothesis of the client satisfiers analysis type is that the most important things to improve are those things that correlate with the client's overall satisfaction.

The next algorithm selection is entitled corporate baseline (overall satisfaction). The corporate baseline algorithm (overall satisfaction) uses the STAT GAP times correlation to repurchase filtered for high importance, low GAP, and high correlation to satisfaction. The corporate baseline algorithm (overall satisfaction) provides the vendor with the client's importance/satisfaction GAP, and the correlation thereof with the client's overall satisfaction with UNISYS. This algorithm uses all importance and satisfaction responses in the sample set in order to perform the analysis. The hypothesis of this analysis is that the most important areas to improve are those things that correlate with the client's overall satisfaction.

The next algorithm selection is entitled corporate baseline (repurchase). The corporate baseline (repurchase) algorithm uses MGAP times correlation to repurchase filtered for high performance, low GAP, and high correlation to repurchase intent. The corporate baseline algorithm (repurchase) provides the vendor with the client's importance/satisfaction GAP, and the correlation thereof with the client's intent to repurchase the vendor's products. This algorithm uses all importance and satisfaction responses in the sample set in order to perform the analysis. The hypothesis is that the most important areas to improve are those things that correlate with the client's intent to repurchase.

The last algorithm selection is entitled custom. The custom analysis type allows the vendor to configure the analysis based on various SWOT parameters including the correlation question, correlation cut-off, GAP, importance, etc.

The SWOT editor window 440 shows the corporate baseline (overall satisfaction) selected at 442. With this selected, a number of corresponding system settings and/or parameters may be changed by the user, including the report cardinality 440, the minimum value answers 446, the strength composite 450, and the weakness composite 448. These parameters may be used by selected rules when a request is executed.

Each of the algorithms in the SWOT editor screen is assigned a unique number, X=1 . . . n, which corresponds with rule sets RS₋₋ init₋₋ strength₋₋ X, RS₋₋ xqt₋₋ strength X, etc. Each algorithm therefore may have an unlimited number of rules associated with initialization and execution in order to generate the desired composite value. The "Custom" or "build-your-own" algorithm uses the values from the SWOT Editor objects as parameters in the rules associated with that selection.

FIG. 18 is a diagram showing a script editor window in accordance with the present invention. The script editor window allows the user to manage scripts of requests. Referring briefly back to FIG. 16, the analysis control window allows the user to copy a request to a script via button 489, rather than execute the request. Thus, a number of requests can be assembled by the user and saved to a script file. At a later date, for example when a subsequent survey database arrives, the user may execute one or more of the script files.

Referring specifically to FIG. 18, a script entity may be selected at 472. Once selected, the contents of the script entity are displayed in the request window 474. The script can be cleared via button 476. The order of the requests within the script entity can be rearranged by deleting or moving a currently selected request via buttons 478, 480, and 482. The resulting script may be saved via button 486. Finally, a particular script may be loaded or appended to a current script via button 484. The script may be executed by simply depressing the execute script button 488.

FIG. 19 is a table showing an illustrative correlation table. The correlation table is generally shown at 500 and includes a generic heading column 502, and a number of survey columns 504, 506, 508 and 510. Each of the survey columns corresponds to a particular survey within the survey database. For example, the survey shown in column 504 may have been taken in 1995, while the survey shown in column 506 may have been taken in 1996. On one embodiment of the present invention, the correlation table correlates each of the questions within each survey to a generic question. For example, generic heading-1 corresponds to question 122 for surveys S-1 and S-2, and question 143 for surveys S-3 and S-4.

Under some circumstances, some of the surveys may not have a question that correspond to a generic heading. For example, surveys S-1 and S-2 do not have questions that correspond to generic heading-2. By using such a correlation table, questions within a particular survey can be identified as corresponding to a request that relates to a particular generic heading.

As indicated above, a result caveat may be provided when a comparison is requested between, for example, surveys S-2 and S-3 with respect to the area addressed by heading-2. That is, the system may provide a result caveat that indicates there is insufficient data in survey S-2 to provide a statistically significant result, if appropriate.

FIG. 20 is a functional diagram showing the interaction of the interface module, knowledge module and data module of the preferred embodiment of the present invention. The diagram is generally shown at 548. The interface module 552 receives user inputs, user script inputs, server batch requests, etc., as shown.

To help the user focus the requests, the interface module 552 may allow the user to select one of a number of surveys, and certain questions from the selected survey. Because corresponding questions in selected surveys may differ from one survey to another, the interface module 552 preferably displays a listing of generic questions for selection by the user when forming the user request. To determine the appropriate generic questions for a selected survey, the interface module 552 may access the correlation table 559 via data module 554 and interface 556, and retrieve the generic questions that correspond to the actual questions in the selected survey via interface 557.

Likewise, the interface module 552 may allow the user to select one of a number of answers to a selected question. The available answers are obtained by accessing a RAP MQA file 563 via data module 554 and interfaces 556 and 557. The RAP MQA file includes the available answers to each question in a survey.

After a request is assembled, the interface module 552 provides the requests to knowledge module 558 via interface 560. Knowledge module 558 may then determine a number of request caveats for the user request, preferably using a number of rules executed by a rules-based expert system. The request caveats may then be provided back to interface module 552 via interface 572.

Knowledge module 558 determines which data requests are required to provide the requested results. When determining the appropriate data requests to access the survey database, knowledge module 558 may gain access to the correlation table 559 via data module 554. Correlation table 559 may provide a correlation between generic questions provided in the user request to question numbers in the various surveys. Thus, knowledge module 558 may determine which data elements in the survey database to access. Knowledge module 558 provides a number of data requests to data module 554, via interface 562.

Data module 554 submits the data requests provided by the knowledge module 558 to a survey analysis program, and preferably to the RAP survey analysis program. Data module 554 may submit the data requests as a batch RAP command 556, which may execute the RAP requests in a batch mode. The RAP survey analysis program may then provide a number of intermediate RAP reports 561 to data module 554. The intermediate RAP reports 561 may be in an ASCII text format. Data module 554 may then parse the intermediate RAP reports 561 into a number of data objects, and may send the resulting data objects to knowledge module 558 via interface 570.

Knowledge module 558 uses the parsed intermediate reports and/or data objects to calculate and/or assemble the desired reports. Preferably, this is accomplished by executing a number of rules in a rules-based expert system. The desired reports are then provided to interface module 552 via interface 572, and stored as a number of analysis reports 576.

It is contemplated that knowledge module 558 may determine a number of result caveats, preferably by executing a number of rules on a rules-based expert system. The result caveats may indicate if the desired results should be viewed with caution. For example, the result caveats may indicate if the results provided to the user are based on a statistically insignificant sample size.

FIG. 21 is a flow diagram showing the general execution of a request in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention. Initializing block 600 clears the transaction viewer and attaches a first user request. The first user request is sent to the knowledge module for verification. Verifying block 602 verifies the user request and appends any appropriate request caveats to a list of request caveats. If the user request is determined to be appropriate, control is passed directly to executing block 606. If the user request is not determined to be appropriate, verifying block 602 asks whether the user request should be executed anyway. If the user indicates that the user request should be executed anyway, control is passed to executing block 606. If, the user indicates that the user request should not be executed anyway, control is passed to viewing block 604.

Executing block 606 executes the user request, and generates a number of results and result caveats. Control is then passed to viewing element 604. Viewing element 604 displays the user request, the request caveats, the results, and the result caveats.

FIG. 22 is a low level object model of the preferred interface module. For illustration purposes, each transaction 622 may include a query class 624 and a result class 626. It should be understood, however, that in the preferred embodiment, the query class 624 and the result class 626 are not actually provided, and are only shown for illustrative purposes. The query class 624 may include a SWOT entity class 628, a request class 630 and a number of request caveat objects 632. Preferably, the request caveat objects 632 are built by the knowledge module, and can be viewed by the user.

The request class 630 can be saved, independent of any system settings or parameters to support the scripting feature of the present invention. The request class 630 may include a simple RAP request class 634 and/or a complex request class 636. The simple RAP request class 634 identifies specific RAP reports that are requested. The complex request class 636 identifies a specific SWOT request or survey analysis request. The result class 622 includes result data class 638 and a number of result caveats objects 640. The results are preferably built using data objects provided to the knowledge module from the data module.

FIG. 23 is a composite object model for the preferred embodiment of the knowledge module. The knowledge module is shown at 650, and may include query analysis class 652, KM₋₋ AGENDA objects 654, inference network class 656, KM₋₋ REQUESTS class 658 and KM₋₋ RESULTS class 660. Query analysis class 652 may include query execute class 662 and a query validation class 664. Query execute class 662 builds the result objects, and sends the result caveats to the interface module. Query validation class 664 builds the request caveats and sends them to the interface module. KM₋₋ AGENDA objects 654 may store agenda objects which control the rule driven report generation and rule-set application by the inference network 656.

The inference network class 656 may include rule-set objects 668 and explain objects 670. Preferably, the inference network class contains a number of multi-valued slots (lists), where each slot corresponds to a rule set. The list of rules to be executed in each instance is stored in the slot name, and the knowledge module determines which rule sets to invoke. A list of rule sets for each type of SWOT analysis is shown in FIG. 53. A list of rules for each rule set is shown in FIGS. 54A-54C. A description of each rule is shown in FIGS. 55A-55O. Finally, inference network class 656 preferably stores a number of explanation objects 670 which correspond to each request. The explanation objects 670 are returned to the interface module to support the "explain" function.

KM₋₋ REQUEST class 658 preferably stores a number of objects that correspond to the knowledge module requests. The request objects are sent to the data module for processing. KM₋₋ RESULTS class 660 includes a SWOT results class 672, a number of RAP result objects 674 and a survey results class 676. SWOT results class 672 stores strength objects 686, weakness objects 688, opportunity objects 690 and threat objects 692. The executed queries indicated at 662 provide the strength objects 686, weakness objects 688, opportunity objects 690 and threat objects 692, as indicated by line 694.

The survey results class 676 includes correlation objects 678, GAP objects 680, MGAP objects 682 and distribution objects 684. The correlation objects 678, GAP objects 680, MGAP objects 682 and distribution objects 684 are created as a result of RAP requests made to the survey database. The strength objects 686, weakness objects 688, opportunity objects 690, threat objects 692, correlation objects 678, GAP objects 680, MGAP objects 682 and distribution objects 684 can be returned to the interface module.

FIG. 24 is a diagram showing a functional model of a SWOT (Strength/Weakness/Opportunity/Threat) analysis 700. SWOT analysis 700 is initiated by a complex query 702. The complex query 702 indicates whether a strength, weakness, opportunity or threat analysis is to be performed. SWOT analysis 700 determines the type of analysis to be performed, analyzes the request, and provides a number of request caveats 724. This is preferably done by executing a number of rules in a rules-based expert system.

SWOT analysis 700 then provides a number of report requests to the data module, as shown at 720. The data module 720 may generate a distribution report 704, a MGAP report 706 and/or a correlation report 708. The data module may either execute the requests directly on a survey database, or provide the request to a survey analysis program, as described above. SWOT analysis 700 then reads the distribution report 704, MGAP report 706 and/or correlation report 708 returned as data objects from data module. From these reports, SWOT analysis 700 generates the appropriate results as shown at 710 through 718, depending on the type of analysis performed. For example, if the request provided by the complex query 702 is a strength analysis, SWOT analysis 700 provides strength results 712. In addition to providing the results, SWOT analysis 700 may provide a number of result caveats, as shown at 724. Further, SWOT analysis 700 may indicate which rules and rule sets were executed during the SWOT analysis as shown at 722.

FIG. 25 is a diagram showing a functional model of a strength analysis. The complex query is formed at 730 and provided to analyze request block 732. Analyze request block 732 determines the type of request that has been provided. In the illustrative diagram, analyze request block 732 determines that the request provided by complex query 730 is a strength request, as indicated at 736. Thereafter, analyze request block 732 creates the appropriate result objects, as shown at 734.

Generate strength block 736 requests the appropriate reports from data module 738. Data module 738 either directly access the survey database, or provides a request to a survey analysis program. In either case, the MGAP report 740, distribution report 742 and correlation report 744 may be created. The generate strength block 736 reads the MGAP report 740, distribution report 742 and/or correlation report 744, and determines the requested strengths. The generate strength block 736 then stores the strengths under the proper strength instance, as shown at 746. The strength data is then provided to send results block 748, which sends the results to results block 750.

Generate strength block 736 also checks the survey data at 756 and provides a number of result caveats, as shown at 758. Finally, generate strength block 736 creates explanation objects, as shown at 752, and provides the rules and rule sets that were executed during the strength analysis including comments therefor, as shown at 754.

FIG. 26 is a diagram showing a functional model of a weakness analysis. The complex query is formed at 770 and provided to analyze request block 772. Analyze request block 772 determines the type of request that has been provided. In the illustrative diagram, analyze request block 772 determines that the request provided by complex query 770 is a weakness request, as indicated at 776. Thereafter, analyze request block 772 creates the appropriate result objects, as shown at 774.

Generate weakness block 776 requests the appropriate reports from data module 778. Data module 778 either directly access the survey database, or provides a request to a survey analysis program. In either case, the MGAP report 780, distribution report 782 and correlation report 784 may be created. The generate weakness block 776 reads the MGAP report 780, distribution report 782 and/or correlation report 784, and determines the requested weaknesses. The generate weakness block 776 then stores the weaknesses under the proper weakness instance, as shown at 786. The weakness data is then provided to send results block 788, which sends the results to results block 790.

Generate weakness block 776 also checks the survey data at 796 and provides a number of result caveats, as shown at 798. Finally, generate weakness block 776 creates explanation objects, as shown at 792, and provides the rules and rule sets that were executed during the weakness analysis including comments therefor, as shown at 794.

FIG. 27 is a diagram showing a functional model of an opportunity analysis. The complex query is formed at 800 and provided to analyze request block 802. Analyze request block 802 determines the type of request that has been provided. In the illustrative diagram, analyze request block 802 determines that the request provided by complex query 800 is an opportunity request, as indicated at 804. Thereafter, analyze request block 802 creates the appropriate result objects.

Generate opportunity block 804 requests the appropriate reports from the data module. For an opportunity request, this includes both a strength analysis 806 for selection-1 and a weakness analysis 808 for selection-2. Selection-1 and selection-2 may correspond to any selection set including selected vendors, geographic regions, products, years, etc.

The generate opportunity block 804 reads the results from the strength analysis 806 for selection-1 and from the weakness analysis 808 for selection-2, and determines the requested opportunities for selection-1. The generate opportunity block 804 then stores the opportunities under the proper opportunity instance, as shown at 810. The opportunity data is then provided to send results block 812, which sends the results to results block 814. Generate opportunity block 804 also checks the survey data at 820 and provides a number of result caveats, as shown at 822. Finally, generate opportunity block 804 creates explanation objects, as shown at 816, and provides the rules and rule sets that were executed during the opportunity analysis including comments therefor, as shown at 818.

FIG. 28 is a diagram showing a functional model of a threat analysis. The complex query is formed at 830 and provided to analyze request block 832. Analyze request block 832 determines the type of request that has been provided. In the illustrative diagram, analyze request block 832 determines that the request provided by complex query 830 is a threat request, as indicated at 834. Thereafter, analyze request block 832 creates the appropriate result objects.

Generate threat block 834 requests the appropriate strength and weakness analysis, as described above. For a threat request, this includes both a weakness analysis 836 for selection-1 and a strength analysis 838 for selection-2. Selection-1 and selection-2 may correspond to any selection set including selected vendors, geographic regions, products, years, etc.

The generate threat block 834 reads the results from the weakness analysis 836 for selection-1 and from the strength analysis 838 for selection-2, and determines the requested threats for selection-1. The generate threat block 834 then stores the threats under the proper threat instance, as shown at 840. The threat data is then provided to send results block 842, which sends the results to results block 844.

Generate threat block 834 also checks the survey data at 850 and provides a number of result caveats, as shown at 852. Finally, generate threat block 834 creates explanation objects, as shown at 846, and provides the rules and rule sets that were executed during the threat analysis including comments therefor, as shown at 848.

FIG. 29 is a diagram showing a functional model of a survey validation analysis. A survey validation request is a form of a complex request described above, and is shown at 870. Using the survey validation request, block 872 requests the appropriate reports from the data module. The data requests are provided to the data module, as shown at 874. In a preferred embodiment, the survey validation request causes the data module to submit the appropriate data requests to the RAP program, thereby generating distribution reports 876, MGAP reports 892, Correlation reports 894, and/or other reports 900.

The distribution reports 876 are provided to distribution checks block 878 and to demographic checks block 880. Distribution checks block 878 checks the distribution of the respondents to various survey questions. For example, the distribution checks block 878 may check the distribution of survey respondents among several customer groups including financial customers, government customers, commercial customers, etc. The results are provided to results block 890. If the number of respondents from any group is outside of a predetermined range, the distribution checks block 878 may provide a result caveat to caveats block 891.

The demographic checks block 880 may check the distribution of respondents on a geographical basis. The results are provided to results block 890. If the number of respondents from any geographic area is outside of a predetermined range, the distribution checks block 878 may provide a result caveat to caveats block 891.

The MGAP reports 892 are provided to paired response check block 896. Paired response check block 896 checks the gaps between importance and satisfaction for various survey questions. The results are provided to results block 890. If the gaps are outside of a predetermined range, the paired response check block 896 may provide result caveats to caveats block 891.

The statistics reports 894 are also provided to paired response check block 896. Using the statistics reports 894, paired response check block 896 may determine if only one answer is provided for a paired response. For example, the paired response check block 896 may determine if the respondent only answered the importance question, but not the satisfaction question for a paired response type question in a survey. The results are provided to results block 890. If only one answer is provided for a paired response, the paired response check block 896 may provide a result caveat to caveats block 891.

Finally, other reports block 900 provides other report to additional surveys check block 902. Like above, additional survey check block 902 provides the results to results block 890, and further provides a number of result caveats to caveats block 891.

FIG. 30 is a diagram showing a functional model of the preferred data module. The data module is illustrated at 930 and receives requests from both the knowledge module 932 and the interface module 952.

As indicated above, interface module 952 may display a listing of generic questions, which may be selected by the user when forming a user request. To determine the appropriate generic questions for a selected survey, the interface module may access the correlation data 946 via the data module 930, and retrieve the generic questions that correspond to the actual questions in the selected survey.

Likewise, the interface module 952 may allow a user to select one of a number of answers to a selected question. The available answers are obtained by accessing the question/answer (MQA) data block 950 via data module 930, as shown. The question/answer data block 950 includes the available answers to each question in a survey.

Once a user request is formed, the request is provided to knowledge module 932. Knowledge module 932 may identify the actual question numbers and the appropriate surveys that correspond to the generic questions provided in the user request. This is preferably accomplished by accessing correlation data 946 via data module 930, as described above.

The knowledge module 932 assembles a number of requests, and provides the requests to the data module 930. Preferably, the requests identifies the appropriate data elements within the RAP report data 940 by specifying the actual question numbers and the corresponding survey.

It is contemplated that some requests may only request RAP reports from the RAP program. These requests are specified by selecting the RAP command mode in the analysis control window, shown for example in FIG. 8. For these requests, the data module 930 may provide the requests directly to RAP activity manager 936 via interface 931. The RAP activity manager may execute the requests, preferably in a batch mode as shown at 944. The resulting RAP reports may then be provided back to data module 930 via interface 933, and returned to the interface module 952 via knowledge module 932.

For complex requests, knowledge module 932 may determine which RAP requests are required to derive the desired results. The knowledge module 932 sends the resulting RAP requests to data module 930. When data module 930 receives the RAP requests from knowledge module 932, data module 930 provides the requests to report block 934. Report block 934 provides the RAP requests to RAP activity manager 936.

RAP activity manager 936 accesses the RAP report data 940 and provides the requested RAP reports to RAP activity manager 936. Preferably, the RAP activity manager 936 provides a batch RAP request 944 to RAP for batch processing. The RAP activity manager 936 receives the requested reports from RAP, and provides the RAP report data to the report block 934. Report block 934 then preferably parses the RAP reports, which are typically in an ASCII format, into a number of requested data objects. The request data objects are then returned to knowledge module 932 via data module 930 for further processing.

FIG. 31 is a diagram showing a consolidated low level object model of the preferred data module. RAP activity manager 936 includes RAP batch interface 960 and RAP file manager 962. RAP batch interface 960 allows batch execution of RAP requests, as shown at 944. The output of the batch execution of RAP requests is provided to RAP report data store 961. RAP file manager 962 may read the RAP report data store 961 and provide the results to RAP report parser 964. RAP activity manager 936 may control RAP report parser 964. RAP report parser 964 parses the survey data 966 into a number of data objects. For example, RAP report parser 964 may provide distribution objects 968, correlation objects 970, statistics objects 972, direct objects 974 and GAP objects 976, as shown.

As indicated above, a correlation table manager 978 may access a correlation table 980 to provide a correlation between questions in various surveys. Correlation table 980 may include question strings 982 and survey translation objects 984.

FIG. 32 is a diagram showing a functional model of a preferred correlation table manager. Correlation table manager 1040 receives correlation data requests 1042 from the data module. Correlation table manager 1040 provides the survey correlation request to correlation table 1044. Correlation table 1044 is updated from the correlation table data store 1046 whenever a new correlation table is generated, for example, whenever a new survey is received and incorporated into the system.

A correlation data request 1042 may provide a generic question, and may request an actual question number in a selected survey. As indicated above, this type of request is often provided by the knowledge module. The correlation table manager provides the request to correlation table 1044. Correlation table provides a text-to-question correlation request to survey-xlation block 1052. In response, survey-xlation block 1052 provides the corresponding question number to correlation table 1044. The corresponding question number is then provided to the requester via correlation table manager 1040.

Another type of correlation data request 1042 is a generic text request. It is often desirable for both the data module and knowledge module to translate from a question number to a corresponding generic question. For example, the data module may receive a number of RAP reports in response to a RAP request. The RAP reports only include the question text from a specific survey. Before transferring the RAP reports, it may be desirable to translate the question text in the RAP reports to a corresponding generic question string.

To do this, the data module may provide a correlation data request to correlation table manager 1040. The correlation table manager 1040 provides the request to correlation table 1044. Correlation table 1044 provides a generic question request to question string block 1050. The generic question request may identify both the question number and the specific survey. In response, the question string block 1050 may provide the corresponding generic question string to correlation table 1044. The corresponding generic question string may then be provided to the requestor via correlation table manager 1040.

Likewise, it may be desirable for the knowledge module to translate from a question number to a generic question string. For example, the knowledge module may perform a strength type analysis. The data module may parse the resulting RAP reports into a number of data objects, and provide the resulting data objects to the knowledge module. It may be desirable for the knowledge module to translate the question text within the reports to the corresponding generic question string before providing the results to the interface module. This translation operates similar to that described above with respect to the data module.

FIG. 33 is a table showing the execution of an illustrative direct RAP request, with a problem detected in the request. The user first enters a direct RAP command via the interface module. The interface module creates a simple RAP object for further analysis. The simple RAP object is sent to the knowledge module for verification. The knowledge module receives the simple RAP object and uses rules to check for problems in the request. Problems that are detected include syntax errors or requests that are determined to be not appropriate. The problems are noted and a number of request caveats provided. The request caveats are sent back to the interface module. The interface module appends the request caveats to a listing. The user then views the request caveats.

FIG. 34A-34B show the execution of an illustrative direct RAP request, when no problems are detected in the request or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problem. The user enters the RAP command, and the interface module accepts the RAP command. The interface module creates a simple RAP object for further analysis. The simple RAP object is then sent to the knowledge module for verification.

The knowledge module receives the simple RAP object and uses rules to check for problems in the request. The knowledge module notes any problems, and updates the request caveats. The request caveats are sent back to the interface module. The interface module then appends the request caveats to a listing.

The knowledge module also sends the RAP command to the data module. The data module receives the RAP command object, and creates batch commands therefrom. The data module executes the batch command and returns the direct RAP objects. The knowledge module previews the RAP results and sends the RAP results to the interface module. The interface module appends the results, and displays the results to the user. The user then views the results, and the result and request caveats.

FIGS. 35A-35B show the execution of an illustrative strength/ weakness/opportunity/threat analysis, when problems are detected in the request. The user selects one or more surveys and request a strength, weakness opportunity or threat analysis. The interface module accepts and checks the request. The interface module also creates a complex query object and sends the complex query object to the knowledge module.

The knowledge module receives the complex query object, and evaluates the analysis inputs. The knowledge module determines the type of reports needed to validate the request, and creates the knowledge module request for the data module.

The data module receives the knowledge module request object and checks for existing reports/objects that correspond to the knowledge module request. If not found, the data module runs the appropriate RAP report, and generates the corresponding objects. In either case, the data module returns the requested objects to the knowledge module.

The knowledge module examines the returned objects and generates request caveats based on knowledge module rules. The knowledge module also creates a number of result caveat objects and sends them to the interface module. The interface module receives the results, request caveats, and result caveats, and displays them to the user.

FIGS. 36A-36C show the execution of an illustrative strength or weakness analysis, when no problems are detected in the request or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problem. The user selects one or more data survey databases and requests a strength or weakness analysis. The interface module accepts and checks the command, and creates a complex query object. The interface module then sends the complex query object to the knowledge module.

The knowledge module receives the complex query object, and determines the type of reports needed. For example, the complex query object may indicate to which products or vendors the request is directed. The knowledge module creates knowledge module request objects for the data module and sends the knowledge module request objects to the data module.

The data module receives the knowledge module request objects. The data module checks existing reports and objects to determine if these objects have been previously generated. If not, the data module runs the appropriate RAP reports and generates appropriate objects. In either case, the data module returns the appropriate results objects to the knowledge module.

In a preferred embodiment, the result objects includes MGAP objects. The knowledge module looks through the MGAP objects and determines which of the MGAP objects are strengths or weaknesses based on a number of rules. The knowledge module then creates a result object stream and sends it to the interface module. The interface module receives the appended result and displays it to the user. The user receives the strength or weakness analysis results, and the corresponding request and result caveats, if any.

FIGS. 37A-37C show the execution of an illustrative threat or opportunity analysis, when no problems are detected in the request or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problem. The user selects the appropriate survey information. This may include one or more surveys, vendors, products, etc. The user also selects an opportunity or threat analysis type. The interface module accepts and checks the command and creates a complex query object. The interface module sends the complex query object to the knowledge module.

The knowledge module receives the complex query object and determines the type of reports needed based on the products, vendors, etc. that are selected. The knowledge module creates multiple knowledge module requests for the data module based on vendor and product knowledge (e.g. rules). The knowledge module then sends the multiple knowledge module requests to the data module.

The data module receives the knowledge module request objects and checks existing reports and objects to see if these objects have been generated by a previous request. If not found, the data module runs the appropriate RAP reports and generates the appropriate objects. In either case, the data module returns the result objects to the knowledge module.

In a preferred embodiment, the result objects include MGAP objects. The knowledge module looks through the MGAP objects and determines which are strengths or weaknesses based on predefined rules. The knowledge module compares these strengths and weaknesses, based on the selected vendors and/or products, and determines which are threats and which are opportunities. The knowledge module creates a result object stream and sends the result object stream to the interface module.

The interface module receives the appended results and displays the results to the user. The user receives the threats or opportunities analysis results, and the corresponding request and result caveats, if any.

FIG. 38 is a table showing the execution of an illustrative survey validation request, with request problems detected. The user enters a survey validation request. The interface module accepts the survey validation request, and creates survey validation objects for further analysis. The survey validation objects are sent to the knowledge module for verification.

The knowledge module receives the survey validation objects, and uses a number of rules to check for problems in the request. The knowledge module notes any problems and updates the request caveats. The knowledge module sends the request caveats back to the interface module. The interface module appends the request caveats, and the user views the appended survey validation request caveats.

FIGS. 39A-39B show the execution of an illustrative survey validation request, when no query problems are detected or when the user indicates that the request should be executed despite the detected problems. The user enters the appropriate survey information and requests a survey validation. The survey validation request is a form of a complex request. The appropriate survey information may include the selection of a particular survey. The interface module accepts and checks the survey validation request, and creates a survey validation object. The survey validation object is sent to the knowledge module.

The knowledge module receives the survey validation object and determines the type of reports needed based on the products, vendors, etc. The knowledge module then creates a number of data request objects, and provides the data request objects to the data module.

The data module receives the data request objects and checks existing reports/objects to determine if the requested reports/objects were already generated by a previous request. If not found, the data module runs the appropriate RAP reports and generates the appropriate result objects. In either case, the data module returns the appropriate result objects to the knowledge module.

The knowledge module looks through the result objects that were returned, and used rules to generates survey validation results. The knowledge module creates a result objects stream and sends the result object stream to the interface module. The interface module receives the appended results, and displays the results to the user.

FIG. 40 is a table showing the execution of an illustrative SWOT parameter update using the SWOT editor of FIG. 17. The user enters SWOT and/or analysis parameters via the SWOT editor. The interface module accepts and checks the parameters entered by the user. The interface module informs the user of nonacceptable parameter values, if any. The interface module then allows the user to store or retrieve these parameters upon request. The user receives an updated display.

FIG. 41 is a flow diagram showing an illustrative method of the present invention. The algorithm is entered at element 1060 and control is passed to element 1062. Element 1062 accepts a user request. Control is then passed to element 1064. Element 1064 processes the request by executing selected ones of a number of predefined rules in a rules based expert system to provide a survey data request. Control is then passed to element 1066. Element 1066 accesses the survey database in accordance with the survey data request, and provides a number of selected survey data elements. Control is then passed to element 1068. Element 1068 processes selected ones of the selected survey data elements by executing selected ones of a number of predefined rules in a rules based expert system. Control is then passed to element 1070. Element 1070 provides a result. Control is then passed to element 1072, wherein the algorithm is exited.

FIG. 42 is a flow diagram showing another illustrative method of the present invention. The algorithm is entered at element 1200 and control is passed to element 1202. Element 1202 provides a user request. Element 1204 checks the user request to determine if it is a valid request. If the request is not valid or otherwise questionable, a request caveat may be provided. Control is passed to element 1206. Element 1206 determines which of the data elements in the survey data base are required to derive a response to the user request by, at least in part, executing a number of predefined rules in a rules-based expert system, thereby resulting in a number of selected data elements. Control is then passed to element 1208.

Element 1208 reads the selected data elements from the survey data base, and passes control to element 1210. Element 1210 determines the response to the request at least in part by executing a number of predefined rules in a rules-based expert system. Control is then passed to element 1212. Element 1212 determines if the survey database has a sufficient number of selected data elements to derive a statistically significant response to the user request. Control is then passed to element 1214, wherein the algorithm is exited.

FIG. 43 is a flow diagram showing the method of FIG. 42, with elements 1206, 1208 and 1210 of FIG. 42 replaced with elements 1220 and 1222 of FIG. 43. Referring back to FIG. 42, after element 1204 checks the user request, element 1220 of FIG. 43 assembles a number of data requests using the rules-based expert system. Element 1220 further submits the number of data requests to a data module, and provides a number of requested intermediate reports to the rules-based expert system. Element 1222 uses the number of requested intermediate reports to calculate a number of entries in one or more reports that are provided to the user. Control is then passed to element 1212 of FIG. 42. It is contemplated that element 1220 and element 1222 may be combined, wherein the data module may access the survey database and provides one or more reports that are then provided to the user.

FIG. 44 is a flow diagram showing another variation of the method shown in FIG. 42, with element 1206 of FIG. 42 is replaced with element 1228 of FIG. 44. Element 1228 determines an analysis type of the user request, and determines which of the data elements in the survey database are required to derive a response to the analysis type of the user request. This is done, at least in part, by executing a number of predefined rules in a rules-based expert system, thereby resulting in a number of selected data elements.

FIG. 45A and FIG. 45B show an illustrative method for processing a number of rules using an inference engine in accordance with the present invention. As discussed in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/937,353, filed Sep. 23, 1997, entitled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING AN ENDLESS LOOP IN A RULES-BASED EXPERT SYSTEM", each of the rules may includes an if type clause which specifies an expression, and a then type clause. The then type clause is executed only if the expression of the if type clause is satisfied. The then type clause preferably includes a statement that increments a counter for the corresponding rule. A counter value is maintained for selected rules in the system, and preferably all rules. The value stored in each rule counter is periodically compared to a predetermined value. If any of the counter values exceed the predetermined value, it is concluded that the rules based expert system is stuck in an endless loop, and the inference engine is interrupted accordingly.

Referring specifically to FIG. 45A, Rule "A" 1274 includes an if clause 1276 and a then clause 1278. The if clause 1276 has an expression {(PAR "A")}, which indicates that the expression is dependent on a parameter named "A". The then clause 1278 has a corresponding statement {(CHANGE PAR "C")}, which indicated that the statement changes a parameter named "C". Unlike the prior art, however, the then clause 1278 also has a statement that increments a counter "A". The remaining rules "B" through "Z" also have an increment statement, as shown.

In the illustrative diagram, the expression for each of the if clauses of FIGS. 45A-45B are shown to be true. Thus, the corresponding then clauses are always executed. It should be understood, however, that if an "if" expression is found to be false, the corresponding then clause is simply not executed. Thus, in this case, the rule would be applied but not executed.

The inference engine preferably processes a request in a number of iterative passes. During a first pass 1280, the inference engine sequentially executes each of rules "A"-"Z". For each rule, the inference engine determines if the expression of the if clause is true. If the expression is found to be true, the corresponding then clause is executed. For those parameter that are changed, the inference engine maintains a listing of the updated parameters 1282, as shown.

When Rule "A" 1274 is executed, the expression of the if clause 1276 is found to be true. Thus, the then clause 1278 is executed along with the corresponding statements. A first statement changes the value of parameter "C". A second statement increments the counter "A", as shown. The inference engine then adds a reference to parameter "C" to the listing of updated parameters 1282. The remaining rules RULE "B"-"Z" are sequentially executed in a like manner to complete the first pass 1280. Preferably, a counter is maintained for each rule, and incremented as appropriate during processing.

After the first pass 1280 is complete, the listing of updated parameters 1282 includes references to each parameter that was changed during the first pass 1280. Because some of the rules may have expressions that depend on these parameters, a second pass 1284 is required.

During the second pass 1284, the inference engine determines which of the rules have an expression in the if clause that is dependent on one or more of the parameters in the listing of updated parameters 1282. The inference engine re-executes only those rules, which in this case includes RULE "C", RULE "Z", RULE "A" and RULE "B". The inference engine then updates the listing of updated parameters 1282 accordingly. After the second pass 1284 is complete, the listing of updated parameters 1282 includes references to each parameter that was changed during the second pass 1284, namely parameters "B", "C" and "Z". Because some of the rules may have expressions that depend on these parameters, a third pass 1286 is required (see FIG. 45B).

During the third pass 1286, the inference engine determines which of the rules have an expression in the if clause that is dependent on one or more of the parameters in the listing of updated parameters 1282. The inference engine re-executes only those rules, which in this case includes RULE "B", RULE "C", and RULE "Z". The inference engine then updates the listing of updated parameters 1282 accordingly. After the third pass 1286 is complete, the listing of updated parameters 1282 includes references to each parameter that was changed during the third pass 1286, namely parameters "Z" and "B". Because some of the rules may have expressions that depend on these parameters, a fourth pass 1288 is required.

During the fourth pass 1288, the inference engine determines which of the rules have an expression in the if clause that is dependent on one or more of the parameters in the listing of updated parameters 1282. The inference engine re-executes only those rules, which in this case includes RULE "Z" and RULE "B". The inference engine then updates the listing of updated parameters 1282 accordingly. After the fourth pass 1288 is complete, the listing of updated parameters 1282 includes references to each parameter that was changed during the fourth pass 1288, namely parameters "B" and "Z".

The inference engine continues processing until either the listing of updated parameters 1282 becomes empty or the count corresponding to any of the rules "A"-"Z" exceeds a predetermined value. In this case, references to parameters "B" and "Z" will always be present in the listing of updated parameters 1282 after each pass. Thus, when the count value for either RULE "B" or RULE "Z" exceeds a predetermined value, the inference engine will be interrupted. This provides an efficient means for detecting when a rules based expert system is stuck in an endless loop.

While an increment statement is shown in the then type clause of each rule, it is contemplated that any means may be used to count the number of times the corresponding rule is executed. For example, a special counter routine may be provided for maintaining a count for each rule. The special counter routine may detect which rule is currently being executed, and increment the appropriate counter. The important feature is that a count is maintained for each of a number of selected rules.

The increment statement used to detect an endless loop can also be used to determine which rules were executed during the execution of a test sequence. To identify the rules that are executed, one embodiment of the present invention contemplates providing a test indicator for each of the number of available rules. The test indicator may be the maintained by the increment statement discussed above. As shown in FIG. 45A and FIG. 45B, the test indicator is set for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed. Thereafter, the rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence can be identified by examining the test indicator for each of the available rules.

It is also contemplated a test indicator may be provided in the "if" type clause of each of the rules. This test indicator may also be an increment statement, and may be incremented each time the corresponding rule is applied. The rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence may then be identified by examining the test indicator of the "if" type clause for each of the available rules.

FIG. 46 is a conceptual diagram of the processing of an illustrative analysis request in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. The analysis request may be one of a number of requests in a test sequence. The analysis request is generally shown at 1300, and executes RULE SET-1, RULE SET-2 and RULE-SET3, as shown. The rule sets are typically sequentially provided to the inference engine.

During processing of the first rule set 1302, a rule set indicator called "EXECUTION COUNT1" is incremented, as shown at 1304. Thereafter, the rule set name "RULE SET-1" may be appended to a slot called invoked rule set, which may be stored in an explanation object within the database. The explanation object is shown as "CLASS: explain" in FIG. 56D and FIG. 57E.

Each of the rules that are associated with RULE SET-1 are then applied to the inference engine. The rule set preferably includes a listing of rules that identifies which rules are associated therewith. In this case, RULE-A, RULE-B, RULE-C, and RULE-D are identified as being associated with RULE SET-1, and are applied as shown at 1310.

In the illustrative embodiment, RULE-C is the only rule that is actually executed by the inference engine, as indicated by the circle. In a preferred embodiment, an increment statement is provided in the "then" type clause of RULE-C, which increments the corresponding count value when RULE-C is executed. By examining the count value for each of the available rules, the rules that were actually executed can be identified.

RULE SET-2 and RULE SET-3 are executed in a similar manner. For RULE SET-2, RULE-A, RULE-F, RULE-G and RULE-H are applied, and only RULE-F and RULE-G are executed. For RULE SET-3, RULE-L, RULE-M, RULE-N and RULE-O are applied, and only RULE-M is executed.

In the illustrative diagram, the available rule sets include RULE SET-1 through RULE SET-10, as shown at 1336. Likewise, the available rules include RULE-A through RULE-Z, as shown at 1338.

FIG. 47A shows a number of illustrative rule and rule set parameters that can be provided from the analysis request of FIG. 46. The illustrative rule set parameters are shown generally at 1370, and the illustrative rule parameters are generally shown at 1372.

The illustrative rule set parameters include a RULE SET EXECUTED parameter 1374, a NUMBER OF RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1376, a NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RULE SETS parameter 1378, a RULE SETS NOT EXECUTED parameter 1380 and a NUMBER OF RULE SETS NOT EXECUTED parameter 1382. The RULE SET EXECUTED parameter 1374 may identify which of the rule sets were executed during the execution of the analysis request 1300. As indicated above, this can be accomplished by examining the count value associated with each of the rule sets. For example, the value of EXECUTION COUNT1 1304, EXECUTION COUNT2 and EXECUTION COUNT3 can each be examined. If the count value is greater than zero, for example, the corresponding rule set is determined to have been executed. In the example shown, the RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1374 identifies RULE SET-1, RULE SET-2 and RULE SET-3 as having been executed.

The NUMBER OF RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1376 may identify the number of rule sets that were executed. This can be accomplished by, for example, counting the number of rule sets that are identified by the RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1374. In the example shown, the NUMBER OF RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1376 indicates that three rule sets were executed.

The NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RULE SETS parameter 1378 may identify the number of available rule sets in the system. In the preferred embodiment, the present invention provides a "get all rule sets" command. The number of rule sets in the system may then be determined by simply counting the number of rule sets that are returned. Otherwise, a listing of all available rule sets may be maintained. In the example shown, the NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RULES SETS parameter 1378 indicates that 10 rule sets are available within the system.

The RULE SETS NOT EXECUTED parameter 1380 may identify those rule sets that were not executed during the execution of the analysis request 1300. This may be accomplished by, for example, identifying all available rule sets, and removing the rule sets that are identified by the RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1374. In the example shown, the RULE SETS NOT EXECUTED parameter 1380 identifies RULE SET-4 through RULE-SET 10 as not having been executed.

The NUMBER OF RULE SETS NOT EXECUTED parameter 1382 may identify the number of rule sets that were not executed during the execution of the analysis request 1300. This may be accomplished by, for example, subtracting the NUMBER OF RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1376 from the NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RULE SETS parameter 1378. In the example shown, the NUMBER OF RULE SETS NOT EXECUTED parameter 1382 indicates that seven rules sets were not executed.

The illustrative rule parameters include a RULES APPLIED parameter 1384, a RULES EXECUTED parameter 1386, a NUMBER OF RULES APPLIED parameter 1388, a NUMBER OF RULES EXECUTED parameter 1400, an AVAILABLE RULES parameter 1402, a RULES NOT APPLIED parameter 1404 and a RULES NOT EXECUTED parameter 1406. The RULES APPLIED parameter 1384 identifies those rules that were applied during the execution of the analysis request 1300. This can be accomplished by including an increment statement in the "if" clause of each rule. Those rules that have a count value that is greater than zero are identified as having been executed during the execution of the analysis request 1300. Alternatively, the rules that were applied during the execution of the analysis request 1300 can be determined by examining the listing of rules for each of the rule sets identified in the RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1374, as described above. In the example shown, the RULES APPLIED parameter 1384 identifies RULE-A through RULE-D, RULE-F through RULE-H, and RULE-L through RULE-O.

The RULES EXECUTED parameter 1386 identifies the rules that were actually executed. As indicated above, this can be accomplished by including an increment statement in the "then" type clause of each rule. In this configuration, the increment statement increments a count value each time the corresponding rule is executed. In the example shown, the RULES EXECUTED parameter 1386 identifies RULE-C, RULE-F, RULE-G and RULE-M as having been executed.

The NUMBER OF RULES APPLIED parameter 1388 identifies the number of rules that were applied during the execution of the analysis request 1300. This can be accomplished by counting the number of rules identified by the RULES APPLIED parameter 1384. In the example shown, the NUMBER OF RULES APPLIED parameter 1388 indicates that eleven rules were applied during the execution of the analysis request 1300.

The NUMBER OF RULES EXECUTED parameter 1400 identifies the number of rules that were executed during the execution of the analysis request 1300. This can be accomplished by counting the number of rules identified by the RULES EXECUTED parameter 1386. In the example shown, the NUMBER OF RULES EXECUTED parameter 1400 indicates that four rules were executed during the execution of the analysis request 1300.

The AVAILABLE RULES parameter 1402 may identify each of the available rules in the system. Some object oriented programming environments, such as the KAPPA-PC programming environment available from IntelliCorp, Inc., provide a "get all rules" command. By examining the rules that are returned, the system may identify the rules that are available within the system. Otherwise, a listing of available rules may be maintained. In the example shown, the AVAILABLE RULES parameter 1402 identifies RULE-A through RULE-Z as the available rules in the system.

The RULES NOT APPLIED parameter 1404 identifies those rules that were not applied during the execution of the analysis request 1300. This can be accomplished, for example, by removing those rules identified by the RULES APPLIED parameter 1384 from those rules identified by the AVAILABLE RULES parameter 1402. In the example shown, the RULES NOT APPLIED parameter 1404 identifies RULE-E, RULE-I through RULE-K, and RULE-P, through RULE-Z as having not been applied.

Finally, the RULES NOT EXECUTED parameter 1406 identifies those rules that were not executed during the execution of the analysis request 1300. This can be accomplished, for example, by removing those rules identified by the RULES EXECUTED parameter 1386 from those rules identified by the AVAILABLE RULES parameter 1402. In the example shown, the RULES NOT EXECUTED parameter 1406 identifies RULE-A, RULE-B, RULE-D, RULE-E, RULE-H through RULE-L, and RULE-N through RULE-Z as having not been executed.

Both the RULE SET parameters and the RULE parameters may provide guidance on how to update a test sequence to achieve optimum test coverage. These parameters may be helpful in identifying appropriate changes to make in the test sequence so that those rule sets and rules that were not exercised during the previous iteration are exercised in a subsequent iteration. Also, these parameters provide a measure of the test coverage of a particular test sequence.

FIG. 47B shows a number of test coverage indicators that can be calculated from the rule and rule set parameters of FIG. 47A. The illustrative test coverage indicators include a TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULE SETS 1420, a TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES APPLIED 1422, a TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES EXECUTED 1424 and a TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES EXECUTED VS RULES APPLIED 1426.

The TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULE SETS 1420 may be calculated by dividing the NUMBER OF RULE SETS EXECUTED parameter 1376 by the NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RULE SETS parameter 1378. In the example shown, the TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULE SETS 1420 is equal to about 30 percent.

The TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES APPLIED 1422 may be calculated by dividing the NUMBER OF RULES APPLIED parameter 1388 by the NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RULES. In the example shown, the TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES APPLIED 1422 is equal to about 42 percent.

The TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES EXECUTED 1424 may be calculated by dividing the NUMBER OF RULES EXECUTED parameter 1400 by the NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RULES. In the example shown, the TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES EXECUTED 1424 is equal to about 15 percent.

Finally, the TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES EXECUTED VS RULES APPLIED 1426 may be calculated by dividing the NUMBER OF RULES EXECUTED parameter 1400 by the NUMBER OF RULES APPLIED parameter 1388. In the example shown, the TEST COVERAGE INDICATOR FOR RULES EXECUTED VS RULES APPLIED 1426 is equal to about 36 percent.

FIG. 48 is a flow diagram showing an illustrative method in accordance with the present invention. The algorithm is entered at element 1500, and control is passed to element 1502. Element 1502 provides a first test indicator for each of the number of available rules. Control is then passed to element 1504. Element 1504 sets the first test indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is applied, preferably by an inference engine of a rules based expert system. Control is then passed to element 1506. Element 1506 determines which rules were applied and/or the number of rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first test indicator for each of the available rules. Control is then passed to element 1508, wherein the algorithm is exited.

FIG. 49 is a flow diagram showing another illustrative method of the present invention. The algorithm is entered at element 1520, and control is passed to element 1522. Element 1522 provides a first test indicator for each of the number of available rules. Preferably, the first test indicator is a count value. Element 1522 further provides a second test indicator for each of the available rules, wherein the second test indicator is preferably account value. Control is then passed to element 1524. Element 1524 increments the count value of the first test indicator each time the corresponding rule is applied. Element 1524 also increments the count value of the second test indicator each time the corresponding rule is executed. Control is then passed to element 1526. Element 1526 determines which rules were applied and/or the number of rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the count value of the first test indicator of each rule with a predetermined value, such as zero. Element 1524 also determines which of the rules were executed during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the count value of the second test indicator of each of the rules with a predetermined value, such as zero. Control is then passed to element 1528, wherein the algorithm is exited.

FIG. 50 is a flow diagram showing another illustrative method in accordance with the present invention. The algorithm is entered at element 1550, and control is passed to element 1552. Element 1552 provides a rule set indicator for each of the number of rule sets in a rules based expert system. Control is then passed to element 1554. Element 1554 sets the rule set indicator for a particular rule set when that particular rule set is executed. Control is then passed to element 1556. Element 1556 determines which of the rule sets and/or the number of rule sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the rule set indicator for each of the available rule sets. Control is then passed to element 1558. Element 1558 identifies the available rule sets that are not executed during the execution of the test sequence, preferably by comparing the rule sets that are identified as having been executed with all available rule sets. Control is then passed to element 1560, wherein the algorithm is exited.

FIG. 51 is a flow diagram showing a first variation of the method of FIG. 50. Control is passed from element 1558 of FIG. 50 to element 1570 of FIG. 51. Element 1570 identifies which of the available rules were applied during the execution of the test sequence. This is preferably accomplished by examining a listing of rules that are associated with each of the rule sets that are identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence. Control is then passed to element 1572. Element 1572 identifies the available rules that are not applied during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the rules that are identified as having been applied during the execution of the test sequence with all available rules. Control is then passed to element 1560 of FIG. 50, wherein the algorithm is exited.

FIG. 52 shows yet another variation of the method of FIG. 50. Control is passed from element 1558 of FIG. 50 to element 1580 of FIG. 52. Element 1580 identifies the rules that are actually executed by maintaining a test indicator for each rule. The test indicator is set for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed. Control is then passed to element 1582. Element 1582 identifies the available rules that are not executed during execution of the test sequence by comparing the rules that are identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence with all available rules. Control is then passed to element 1560 of FIG. 50, wherein the algorithm is exited.

FIG. 53 is a table showing illustrative analysis types, and the corresponding rule sets that are associated therewith. In the left column, the preferred complex analysis types are shown. In the right column, the preferred rule sets are identified for each analysis type. When a particular analysis type is requested, the knowledge module executes each of the corresponding rule sets in the order indicated.

FIGS. 54A-54C show a table of preferred rule sets, and the corresponding rules that are associated therewith. In the left column, a number of rule set names are shown. In the right column, the preferred rules are identified for each rule set. When a particular rule set is executed by the knowledge module, the corresponding rules are executed by the inference engine as required.

FIGS. 55A-55O show a table of the preferred rules, along with corresponding rule comments. In the left column, a number of rule names are shown. In the right column, the corresponding rule comments are shown. The rule comments describe the action performed by the corresponding rule.

FIGS. 56A-56F shows an illustrative listing of the object oriented database before any analysis runs are executed. FIGS. 57A-57G shows an illustrative listing of the object oriented database before after a strength analysis type is executed. When comparing FIG. 56D and FIG. 57D, it can be seen that a number of strength results are generated in the KM/KM₋₋ results/SWOT₋₋ results/ strength class.

Having thus described the preferred embodiments of the present invention, those of skill in the art will readily appreciate that the teachings found herein may be applied to yet other embodiments within the scope of the claims hereto attached. 

What is claimed is;:
 1. A method for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rules selected from a number of available rules and execute one or more of the rules that are applied, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules in the rules-based expert system, the method comprising the steps of:a. providing a first indicator for each of the number of available rules of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting the first indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is applied; and c. determining the number of rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules.
 2. A method according to claim 1 wherein the first indicator is a count value, and wherein the count value is incremented each time the corresponding rule is applied.
 3. A method according to claim 2 wherein said determining step 1(c) determines the number of rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the count value of the first indicator of each rule with a predetermined value.
 4. A method according to claim 3 wherein the predetermined value is zero.
 5. A method according to claim 1 further comprising the step of determining the percent of the available rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence.
 6. A method according to claim 1 wherein each of the available rules has a second indicator, the second indicator being set for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed.
 7. A method according to claim 6 further comprising the step of determining the number of rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the second indicator for each of the available rules.
 8. A method according to claim 6 wherein the second indicator is a count value, and wherein the count value is incremented each time the corresponding rule is executed.
 9. A method according to claim 8 further comprising the step of determining the number of rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the count value of the second indicator of each rule with a predetermined value.
 10. A method according to claim 9 wherein the predetermined value is zero.
 11. A method according to claim 6 further comprising the step of determining the percent of the available rules that were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 12. A method for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rule sets selected from a number of available rule sets, each of the available rule sets having a listing of rules selected from a number of available rules, the execution of one of the number of rule sets causing each of the rules in the corresponding listing of rules to be applied, and selected ones of the number of rules that are applied being actually executed by the rules-based expert system, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rule sets in the rules-based expert system, the method comprising the steps of:a. providing a rule set indicator for each of the number of available rule sets of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting the rule set indicator for a particular rule set when that particular rule set is executed; and c. determining the number of rules sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the rule set indicator for each of the available rule sets.
 13. A method according to claim 12 wherein the rule set indicator is a count value, and wherein the count value is incremented each time the corresponding rule set is executed.
 14. A method according to claim 13 wherein said determining step 12(c) determines the number of rule sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the count value of the rule set indicator of each rule set with a predetermined value.
 15. A method according to claim 14 wherein the predetermined value is zero.
 16. A method according to claim 12 further comprising the step of identifying which of the rule sets were executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 17. A method according to claim 16 wherein the rule sets are identified by appending a rule set name to a listing of executed rule set names when the corresponding rule set is executed.
 18. A method according to claim 17 further comprising the step of determine the percentage of available rule sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 19. A method according to claim 16 further comprising the step of identifying which of the available rules were applied during the execution of the test sequence.
 20. A method according to claim 19 wherein the available rules that are applied are identified by examining the listing of rules that are associated with each of the rules sets that are identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 21. A method according to claim 20 wherein the available rules that are not applied during the execution of the test sequence are identified by comparing the rules that were identified as having been applied during the execution of the test sequence with all available rules.
 22. A method according to claim 20 wherein the available rules that are actually executed are identified by maintaining a test indicator for each rule, wherein the test indicator is set for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed.
 23. A method according to claim 22 further comprising the step of determining the number of rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the test indicator for each of the available rules.
 24. A method according to claim 23 further comprising the step of determining the percent of the available rules that were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 25. A method according to claim 16 wherein the available rule sets that are not executed during the execution of the test sequence are identified by comparing the rule sets that were identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence with all available rule sets.
 26. A method for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rules selected from a number of available rules and execute one or more of the rules that are applied, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules in the rules-based expert system, the method comprising the steps of:a. providing a first indicator for each of the number of available rules of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting the first indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is applied; and c. determining which rules were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules.
 27. A method according to claim 26 further comprising the steps of:d. providing a second indicator for each of the number of available rules; e. setting the second indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is actually executed; and f. determining which rules were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the second indicator for each of the available rules.
 28. A method for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having said inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rules selected from a number of available rules and execute one or more of the rules that are applied, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules in the rules-based expert system, the method comprising the steps of:a. providing a first indicator for each of the number of available rules of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting the first indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed; and c. determining which of the rules were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules.
 29. A method for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rules selected from a number of available rules and execute one or more of the rules that are applied, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules in the rules-based expert system, the method comprising the steps of:a. providing a first indicator for each of the number of available rules of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting the first indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed; and c. determining the number of rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules.
 30. A method for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference system, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rule sets selected from a number of available rule sets, each of the available rule sets having a listing of rules selected from a number of available rules, the execution of one of the number of rule sets causing each of the rules in the corresponding listing of rules to be applied, and selected ones of the number of rules that are applied being actually executed by the rules-based expert system, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules in the rules-based expert system, the method comprising the steps of:a. providing a rule set indicator for each of the number of available rule sets of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting the rule set indicator for a particular rule set when that particular rule set is executed; and c. determining which rule sets were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the rule set indicator for each of the available rule sets.
 31. A method according to claim 30 further comprising the steps of:d. identifying which rules where applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the corresponding listing of rules for each of the rule sets that are determined to have been executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 32. A method according to claim 31 further comprising the steps of:e. providing a test indicator for each of the number of available rules; f. setting the test indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is actually executed; and g. determining which rules were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the test indicator for each of the available rules.
 33. An apparatus for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rules selected from a number of available rules and execute one or more of the rules that are applied, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules in the rules-based expert system, comprising:a. storing module for storing a first indicator for each of the number of available rules of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting module coupled to said storing module for setting the first indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is applied; and c. determining module coupled to said storing module for determining the number of rules that are applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules.
 34. An apparatus according to claim 33 wherein said storing module comprises a number of counter means, one for each of the available rules, each of said counter means being incremented each time the corresponding rule is applied.
 35. An apparatus according to claim 34 wherein said determining module determines the number of rules that were applied during the execution of the test sequence by determining which rules have a count value in the corresponding counter means that is greater than a predetermined value.
 36. An apparatus according to claim 33 wherein each of the available rules has a second indicator, the second indicator being set for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed.
 37. An apparatus according to claim 36 wherein said determining module further determines the number of rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the second indicator for each of the available rules.
 38. An apparatus for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rule sets selected from a number of available rule sets, each of the available rule sets having a listing of rules selected from a number of available rules, the execution of one of the number of rule sets causing each of the rules in the corresponding listing of rules to be applied, and selected ones of the number of rules that are applied being actually executed by the rules-based expert system, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules sets in the rules-based expert system, comprising:a. storing means for storing a rule set indicator for each of the number of available rule sets of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting means coupled to said storing means for setting the rule set indicator for a particular rule set when that particular rule set is executed; and c. determining means coupled to said storing means for determining the number of rules sets that were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the rule set indicator for each of the available rule sets.
 39. An apparatus according to claim 38 wherein said storing means comprises a number of counter means, one for each of the available rules sets, each of said counter means being incremented each time the corresponding rule set is applied.
 40. An apparatus according to claim 39 wherein said determining means determines the number of rule sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by determining which rule sets have a count value in the corresponding counter means that is greater than a predetermined value.
 41. An apparatus according to claim 38 wherein said determining means further determines the percentage of available rule sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 42. An apparatus according to claim 38 wherein said determining means further determines which of the rule sets were executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 43. An apparatus according to claim 42 wherein said determining means deter mines which of the rule sets that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by appending a rule set name to a listing of executed rule set names when the corresponding rule set is executed.
 44. An apparatus according to claim 43 wherein said determining means further determines which of the available rules were applied during the execution of the test sequence.
 45. An apparatus according to claim 44 wherein said determining means determines which of the available rules were applied by examining the listing of rules that are associated with each of the rules sets that are identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 46. An apparatus according to claim 45 wherein said determining means determines which of the available rule sets are not executed during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the rule sets that were identified as having been executed during the execution of the test sequence with all available rule sets.
 47. An apparatus according to claim 45 wherein said determining means determines which of the available rules are not applied during the execution of the test sequence by comparing the rules that were identified as having been applied during the execution of the test sequence with all available rules.
 48. An apparatus according to claim 47 wherein said determining means determines the available rules that are actually executed by maintaining a test indicator for each rule, wherein the test indicator is set for a particular rule when that particular rule is executed.
 49. An apparatus according to claim 48 wherein said determining means determines the number of rules that were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the test indicator for each of the available rules.
 50. An apparatus according to claim 49 wherein said determining means further determines the percent of the available rules that were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 51. An apparatus for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rules selected from a number of available rules and execute one or more of the rules that are applied, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rules in the rules-based expert system, comprising:a. storing module for storing a first indicator for each of the number of available rules of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting module coupled to said storing module for setting the first indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is applied; and c. determining module coupled to said storing module for determining which rules were applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the first indicator for each of the available rules.
 52. An apparatus according to claim 51 wherein said storing module further stores a second indicator for each of the number of available rules, and said setting module sets the second indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is actually executed, and wherein said determining module determines which rules were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the second indicator for each of the available rules.
 53. An apparatus for identifying the test coverage of a test sequence that is executed in a rules-based expert system having an inference engine, the execution of the test sequence causing the rules-based expert system to apply a number of rule sets selected from a number of available rule sets, each of the available rule sets having a listing of rules selected from a number of available rules, the execution of one of the number of rule sets causing each of the rules in the corresponding listing of rules to be applied, and selected ones of the number of rules that are applied being actually executed by the rules-based expert system, the test coverage indicating the degree that the test sequence was successful in exercising each of the number of available rule sets in the rules-based expert system, comprising the steps of:a. storing module for storing a rule set indicator for each of the number of available rule sets of said rules-based expert system having said inference engine; b. setting module coupled to said storing module for setting the rule set indicator for a particular rule set when that particular rule set is executed; and c. determining module coupled to said storing module for determining which rules sets were executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the rule set indicator for each of the available rule sets.
 54. An apparatus according to claim 53 wherein said determining module further determines which rules where applied during the execution of the test sequence by examining the corresponding listing of rules for each of the rule sets that are determined to have been executed during the execution of the test sequence.
 55. An apparatus according to claim 54 wherein said storing module stores a test indicator for each of the number of available rules, said setting means sets the test indicator for a particular rule when that particular rule is actually executed, and said determining means determines which rules were actually executed during the execution of the test sequence by examining the test indicator for each of the available rules. 